Feminists and Evolutionary Psychology: Volume 2

In our second look at feminists rejecting scientific disciplines in favour of their own ideological opinions we find an article from a typical feminist blog. Admittedly this feminist blog actually seems to have bothered with some research on the topic, as well as having some background knowledge, instead of burying its head in the sand like many of these moronic 'science writers' who try and force their ideas of equality into everything. Although I don't hate this particular writer the article in question still full of the same old traps that feminist blogs always fall into, as well as some big factual inaccuracies.
_________________________________________________________________________
https://disruptingdinnerparties.com/2013/05/09/whyevopsychisalmostneverscience/
_________________________________________________________________________

I will begin by commending this article in opening with the view that evolutionary psychology is a perfectly valid discipline instead of just blindly claiming it's all wrong because you don't like it. I must admit it's quite a bizarre scenario to have a feminist lecture me on the validity of evidence, as usually it's me making this very point to criticise feminist theory, but in this scenario it's at least arising from someone with a science based background instead of some ignorant internet blogger. Still, whilst genetics and evolution are intertwined within one another, they are not the same, and so as an evolutionary biologist I'll gladly point to the route of sexism as partly genetic. Of course that comment comes with about fifteen million caveats, and my insignificant comments cannot hope to accurately explain such a complex area of science, but I will at least analyse your criticisms and see how they hold up. Without further ado, let's have a look at these assumptions:

There's certainly nothing wrong with calling out these assumptions as unscientific, although the explanation that evolution is a work in progress is misleading. It would be simply inaccurate to describe a constant process as a 'work in progress' because it assumes there's an end goal evolution in general is working towards, which is a point you actually raise in the very next sentence. I think I'll just put this one down as poor wording, as the core science behind this point is spot on. I am a bit confused by the comment about golden ages. I don't believe I've ever seen a study referring to golden ages, but these events certainly exist in literature and history. In fact there's numerous examples of them in almost every single society, whether that be the Dutch Golden Age, the Spanish Golden Age, or even the Golden Age of Hollywood. I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make here. There is also an alarming lack of sources in this paragraph. I believe you're correct in the examples you give, but to fail at sourcing this information gives off the attitude that you must be right on any scientific point because that's your specialty. This is merely an argument from authority, and certainly isn't the way to make a point any more scientifically valid. Some might say you're just telling stories here.

There is certainly nothing wrong with the opening point, however the second starts to fall apart. You see evolution certainly can be directed change. Mutation and genetic drift may well be random processes, but mechanisms such as natural, sexual, and kin selection all describe directional changes. Natural selection for example would simply be unable to operate if the changes in environmental conditions caused merely random changes in allele frequency. This isn't a perfect process, and indeed there are many deleterious mutations that have spread through the population, but this still isn't evidence that evolution is purely stochastic. If it was stochastic it would make fuck all difference what environment an organism happened to live in, and adaptations would be unable to spread through populations. You make a final remark that the fact a trait is persistent tells you nothing about whether it became more common under selective pressures, which isn't strictly true, and a crucial part of viewing natural histories is theorising the selective pressures that lead to common traits. Studies such as the Galapagos ground finch are great examples of how selective pressures affect the frequency of traits within populations, with the persistence of certain traits being demonstrably distinguished. I'm honestly surprised that a self proclaimed geneticist hasn't been able to comprehend that allele frequencies over time are not purely random when Mendel's second law of independent assortment has been violated in numerous examples, with linkage disequilibrium also being a common process in genomes.

The idea of differing reproductive strategies is actually a very important point to make, although the evidence used to back this up lacks any sort of clarity. Infanticide certainly isn't as common as you make it out to be, and actually only exists in individually documented cases within primates. That isn't to say this seemingly counterintuitive phenomenon doesn't back up your argument, but let's stop with the assumption that all primates are routinely trying to curb the number of their offspring. There's also a strange comparison to abortion, which I would personally argue has the same evidence based merit as these anecdotal evolutionary psychology stories you're complaining about. Abortion is a completely separate issue to the point you're making.

What really did confuse me was the last point about male genes having a vested interest in the mother not disliking him, which is certainly not something I've ever seen evidence for. Since you've not bothered to back this sweeping generalisation up I'll happily dismiss the point, as I'm sure you would to if you found this statement in an evolutionary psychology paper. I find the idea that male genes benefit from having a strong relationship with the opposing sex hard to believe, as the cost of the male ejaculate compared to the female egg is minuscule, so a poor relationship between the father and mother would be catastrophic to the fitness of the mother, yet a small obstacle for the male. It seems you've fallen into your own trap of just assuming that there's a singular mating strategy found throughout nature. You seem to be in denial here that polygamy is a completely natural behaviour, and far more common than infanticide may I add. And that I can tell you is a far better assumption than the ones you've been making throughout this article.

We're moving away from evolution now. I must admit that I never find any studies peddling this rhetoric. Sure, there may be a few angry comments on Twitter, but since when do random morons on the internet represent a whole scientific discipline? I do suspect this article suffers from a very large straw man argument, cherry picking a few select comments that can't hope to successfully generalise this large field of study. I doubt the majority of scientists know the ins and outs of changing social values that come with the emergence of a sedentary lifestyle, so are probably unlikely to bring them up as evidence in their papers. We'll never know, as there's fuck all sources for the purely sociological points made here, so we'll just label these as irrelevant to the scientific discussion and continue.

To be fair to evolutionary psychologists this is actually a very accurate assumption to make. Mate choice is defined by a conflict over resources, and when males cannot actively dominate the supply of females they actively compete for reproduction by advertising to females. This is not something exclusive to humans, it's universal in sexually reproducing organisms. I'm sorry if you think this idea devalues the role of women, but this is a biological truth, and accounts for the sexual dimorphism found between sexes. Evolution doesn't care if you choose not to be a part of this system, because you don't get a choice whether to apply by the laws of nature if you're an organic being. Nobody is denying that women can't make choices, and in fact female choice is a widely seen mechanism in mate selection. I just hate this assumption often projected by feminist scientists that if you simply choose to go against the logic of evolution you'll somehow be able to defeat it.

I also have an issue with how you describe systems of mate selection. Mate choice is not an overly simplistic process, and actually a very complex one that requires explanation from multiple different hypotheses. The study you cite does not take into account these various hypotheses, and actually only focuses on the good genes hypothesis. Furthermore the cited study describes females that have been affected by a certain parasite, which is really insignificant evidence for the huge generalisation you've just made. There is far more evidence for instance that mate choice in guppies is largely determined by the sensory bias hypothesis, which is a drastically different mechanism than the good genes model. Does this mean females don't have anything other than a passive role in these systems? No, but females having a disproportionately large role in mate selection is not the predominant trend unless you were examining rarities such as seahorses or pipefish.

Come on now, you're allegedly a geneticist. You must be aware that the phrase 'some behaviour has a genetic basis' is a massive understatement. That's not denying the role of the environment within human behaviour, but recognising that genetics are fundamental for behaviour to manifest itself in humans. This particular article is running into the trap of assuming that a vocal minority of idiots represent the merits of a whole discipline. Are we seriously going to start sourcing Salon articles as academic discourse? You could easily attempt to invalidate everything in academia if you simply cherry pick poor studies. Interestingly it was the actual paper you had an issue with instead of the sub par journalistic source, but you are right to highlight the rather ambiguous generalisation the conclusion of that study comes to, although to then claim they're full of shit is very unfair when you yourself make the following conclusion that's no better:

How can you criticise a discipline for making gross generalisations but then turn a blind eye when your hypothesis is riddled with the exact same faults? Those scientists you criticise could just as easily use your tactics to invalidate your argument, leaving us with a non existent discourse. For some reason we're supposed to blindly believe that your explanation is superior, which is an attitude just as anti-science as the idiots you've been taking down all article. There's further evidence of this pathetic behaviour in the comments section where you prevented a participant in the discussion from responding because they disagreed with your perspective. Was their comment any good? No, but that doesn't give you an excuse to arrogantly prevent scientific discourse. This is an incredibly hypocritical attitude to have, because your whole piece advocates testing for assumptions. It turns out you're only supposed to test the assumptions that you don't personally align with.

At least those scientists provided evidence for their speculative conclusion, whereas your ramblings just make blanket assumptions without backing any of it up, which is now becoming a recurring theme. My main question with your explanation is why can't socialisation be an evolutionary trait? Why do you assume that this teaching cannot possibly have a merit in evolutionary terms? I also don't understand the assumption that men have a vested interest in learning to read each other better in order to keep social power. How the hell is that a better explanation than competition? Perhaps it's a bit unfair to start ridiculing your criticism of a terrible study, but I think these questions do need to be brought up considering you're so keen to reject evolutionary psychology.

As I've said before, I don't think you're accurately portraying a whole discpline here. Of course you're going to find studies riddled with faults if you only bother analysing one side of the argument. Funnily enough if you go beyond reading news based science you might actually find some primary evidence with academic merit. This, like the previous article we viewed, just simply dismisses the discipline without critically analysing the field, and so it's plainly obvious that you're merely rejecting an idea based on pure ideological biases rather than producing an objective assessment. It's a genuine shame, as you do seem to have a solid base in the technicalities, but you seem to hold your own ideas to different standards than that of disciplines you don't agree with. It's all very well if blaming behaviour on institutionalised sexism is based on guesswork, but when anyone else dares to think differently you instantly stamp that thought process out.

The concluding thoughts follow the idea that because of a few bad apples the whole field of evolutionary psychology should be shunned. Sure, you've highlighted some assumptions that stump a minority of studies, but where's the evidence that this whole discipline is inherently flawed?
Even though we have an article that approaches this topic from a scientific mindset, it still hasn't dodged the classic feminist flaws that manage to cloud many areas of the scientific world.

Feminists and Evolutionary Psychology Volume 1

To internet feminist activists anything that doesn't conform to their way of thinking must be part of some patriarchal sexist system. That's where the discipline of evolutionary psychology comes in, which aims to explain human behaviour through evolutionary mechanisms. Not surprisingly explaining behaviour using biological reasoning comes into contact with the feminist ideas that oppressive behaviour is inherently sociological. To illustrate how this irrational hatred in a single discipline is ingrained throughout the whole feminist sphere we'll split this conflict into three parts. This edition will showcase some moronic journalist who clearly doesn't comprehend scientific reasoning. The second article will be from a blog on the internet that at least attempts a rational counterargument. And the third and final piece will be from an academic paper.

This particular article comes from the hub of all scientific knowledge 'Jezebel', and is written by a lady called Lindy West, whose catalogue gives me the utmost faith that she knows fuck all about evolutionary theory. Still maybe click-baiting morons can produce a valid argument every once in a while, so here's her take on evolutionary psychology:
______________________________________________________________________________
http://jezebel.com/5941433/you-can-tell-evolutionary-psychology-isnt-true-because-its-not-true
______________________________________________________________________________

Now this is confusing. Here we have a title that would have us believe this is an article focusing on the truth of a subject, yet we have an opening line that outlines a clear subjective bias. But sure, hating something because it's manipulated into some political crusade is a fair enough reason for wanting to discredit it altogether. That's why I hate this article so much. In the intro it becomes instantly clear this isn't a serious piece of opinion journalism. Really all we get is an opinion that doesn't support the title, and some hilarious jokes, although when I say hilarious jokes I can feel my nose slowly starting to grow. I hate to be this person but no evolutionary psychologist is claiming women are attracted towards people who stomp animals to death, especially when that animal existed tens of millions of years before humans ever evolved. Still, just because this author disagrees with some psychological studies they are therefore invalidated, because remember, anecdotal evidence easily trumps any study in a scientific journal. I'm not calling you stupid because you're a woman, I'm calling you stupid because of your piss poor argument. I don't need to be an 'evo-psych dude' to figure that one out.

The good news is that instead of using scientific studies to discredit a scientific discipline, like maybe you would do if you claimed something wasn't true, this writer decides linking to other journalistic sources is a good idea. Why wouldn't you when they provide the reader with such a trove of evidence to back up the arguments in this piece? Well the only real source in this article supplies us with a survey, which I would argue is not a good way to determine inherent sexual desires. I find it simply inadequate to disprove inherent biological behaviours with a basic survey considering just how diverse and discreet sexual desires express themselves in human behvaiour. Even if we do use this study as evidence, there's still nowhere near enough information to discredit the whole of evolutionary psychology. this particular survey found an apparent cultural difference in desirable traits, which still doesn't disprove the role of genetics in attraction. You simply can't reject a biological explanation of something if you never even bother testing for it in the first place. All you've prove here is that different cultures value different sociological traits. That's not biology in any form, and cannot hope to answer this broad question from an evolutionary perspective.

Oh dear, here's a big evolutionary faux pas. How do you measure progress in evolution? That assumes there's an end goal of evolution, which there isn't considering its a constant process merely revolving around reproductive success. I know feminists love to go on about progressive ideas, but evolutionary processes have no notion of these terms, and so are entirely irrelevant in this discussion. Wouldn't be twisting this study towards your political ideology would we now? No I'm sure there's nothing hypocritical about this article whatsoever.

Again, where's the evidence that genes have no role in these behavioural trends? What is cultural evolution if not genes interacting with their environment? I hate this assumption that just because a behaviour is prehistoric it instantly means it's suddenly bad. How dare the majority of women select mates based on archaic traits. Why don't they conform to my progressive desires? Restricting female choice is absolutely what progressive ideals are all about. I don't know what the fuck evolutionary psychology has got to do with opposing freedom and equality, and there's certainly no evidence presented for this outrageous claim, so like everything else in this piece we can simply dismiss this slanderous comment as unqualified rhetoric.

I can't imagine why evolutionary psychologists would discuss things in the past tense considering evolution is literally allele frequency change over a period of time. You have to look back in time to observe the effects of evolution. The process itself doesn't change, it's a constant, and just because evolution may cause unexpected changes doesn't mean we can't snapshot a given area of natural history and describe how this applies to modern human behaviour. The only person claiming that evolution has an end goal is you with your progressive ideals. And anyway, just because evolution is a process happening all the time doesn't mean we're going to be seeing the huge radical shifts in sexual desires that you claim are happening within the brief timeline of modern society. That sort of change takes millions of years to observe, which is why we have to look way back in time to find evidence of these changes. You even say yourself that evolution is always changing desirable traits, yet in the previous paragraph we were outlining a set progress that funnily enough followed your political ideology. That's your second huge faux pas, and yet more proof you have absolutely no idea what you're rambling about
.
Then there's the big reveal. Turns out this whole article is based merely on feelings, and not facts like the title made us stupidly assume. I for one am completely shocked. In the face of this individual's feelings there is simply no point in rationally explaining a scientific debate, because the way she feels is far more important. For some reason modern life separates humans from natural processes, and subsequently cancels out the roles of evolution, despite this writer claiming in the previous fucking paragraph that evolution is still happening. The rest of biology, well that's also irrelevant, because obviously the mind would never play tricks on an individual. Well here's a dose of reality, your experiences do not effect something that is biologically true. I'm not calling you a liar, as I do truly believe you've experienced the things you describe. What I am calling you is a moron who thinks their useless anecdotes somehow trump the wealth of evidence. Currently that's the only attitude in this debate that should be called out for bullshit.

Wouldn't science be easier if we could just throw away all that peer reviewed empirical nonsense in the bin and instead decide the validity of a scientific theory through some moronic test? The moral of this story is that evolution cannot be applied to human behaviour because people have different tastes. Fucking useless conclusion that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, nor is it even valid. I'm not quite sure who this article is aimed at. The majority of people that advocate for evolutionary psychology in serious debates are scientific professors, and I'm sure they aren't going to be swayed by this reductionist nonsense. Maybe I might be willing to take your stance more seriously if you provided factual information instead of self-centered garbage.

This is possibly the lowest form of scientific journalism possible. There is zero evidence provided for such radical claims, and the only argument is essentially some woman putting her fingers in her ears and screaming how she doesn't agree with something when faced with evidence. That's not scientific reasoning darling, just pure ignorance, and ignorance alone is not a good enough excuse to simply dismiss a serious academic field of study.

The Christoforge Rant Reviews: Ecuador

I was recently given the opportunity to visit the country of Ecuador for two weeks of study within the cloud forest system; at least that's what the aim of the course was, whereas I took it as an exotic excuse to get drunk. I'm sure any pretentious travel blogger would make a meal out of this scenario to try and make up for their shallow personalities, but I resent this low grade journalism, and so in the spirit of this blog we'll plump for a good old review. This isn't a holiday programme, and so I won't be deliberating over whether the country was great or fantastic. This is the uncensored truth that will rely on my personal opinions rather than some manufactured Instagram snaps. During my travels I tactically avoided the dodgy border with Colombia, and instead settled on a weekend in Quito, followed by some research in a cloud forest reserve just a few hours north, where it was unlikely I would end up pleading my parents for ransom money. Despite the fact I've explored an approximate 0.001% of a whole country I still thought I'd fall into the old travel blogger fallacy of generalising an entire country based on the most attractive areas to visit. So here's your definitive travel guide to Ecuador that's in no way definitive, a guide, or an accurate representation of the country.

Just getting the holiday snaps out the way. To be fair that is a fucking brilliant view.

We'll begin by including possibly the only fact in this whole piece. Ecuador literally means 'equator' in Spanish, so easily I equate equators to equidistant equatorial environments. I was in for a surprise, as in fact Ecuador has one of the most bizarre climates I've come across. As a man from Britain I'm used to miserable weather every day of the year, so I wasn't prepared for the weather to vary from boiling to freezing within the course of a single day. Planning a day out anywhere in Ecuador requires a whole fucking wardrobe to be considered. I'm not sure the locals can be bothered with the random weather changes, and so you get an odd mix of citizens with thick jumpers on coexisting with those still in flimsy T-shirts. I on the other hand ended up completely sunburnt and drenched every single day, and most of the time gave up with the wardrobe changes and instead darted into any shop that would allow me to fill up on my new addiction to homemade fruit juice.

Speaking of fruit juice, I feel this is the right moment to complement the locals on their ability to make a glass of fruit juice. Seriously, they're fucking great, and only cost about 0.1 cent for a full glass. The rest of Ecuadorian cuisine is hit and miss, and that's coming from someone who has lived on British cuisine all his life. In Ecuador you can easily find some manly meat and potatoes for next to nothing in a back street cafe, or even meat and potatoes on a stick from a food vendor for not much more. Pretty much everything has meat and potatoes in it, which gets no complaints from me, especially considering the price. In restaurants I saw whole chickens for sale that were less expensive than a basic meal at McDonald's, yet alone a cheeky Nando's back home. I don't want to even think about where that chicken was slaughtered, but I didn't get the shits, so it probably doesn't violate that many human rights. I will admit I stuck well clear of the national delicacy. That's known as cuy, which is roasted guinea pig. I saw some classic roasting spots, and was even recommended it by a native, but was slightly put off by the appearance. They could have at least made the dish look presentable instead of simply shoving a skewer up the ass of a guinea pig and whacking it in the oven. Maybe I would have had a bite after a few beers, but Ecuadorian beer is unremarkable in every aspect. You have the choice of a few generic lagers with the most generic names possible. The only way to get drunk is through the ridiculously cheap rum, but even that wasn't enough for me to bite the head off a skewered rodent.

I can only imagine the four letter words Gordon Ramsay would use to describe that mess.

Another radical difference from back home was transportation. Transit around Ecuador was surprisingly fine and reliable, and to my shock it was the labyrinth that is Madrid Airport that pissed me off the most. Airports just stress me out in general, but customs were surprisingly fine upon entering the country despite me looking dodgy as fuck, and about as out of place as a talking bear. Taxis are almost a necessity for any travelers, so it's a good job they're also dirt cheap and driven by cheerful blokes. However it must be said that any person traveling on the Ecuadorian road system should take out a life insurance policy. I complain about drivers back in Britain that don't indicate to fellow drivers, but at least motorists in Britain follow basic traffic laws. In Ecuador it's a free for all, with drivers overtaking out of lane, or around corners on dual carriageways, and darting down hilly country lanes in the middle of the night, only narrowly avoiding the poorly lit lorry also hurtling down the mountain at similar breakneck speeds. It also seems to be law to honk your horn every two seconds, even for the slightest annoyance, which works well in a country where everyone drives like a lunatic. This also makes crossing the road a marathon task. My preferred strategy was to follow locals as they slowly ambled across huge avenues without a care in the world.

The only other traffic law I could possibly deduce is that any vehicle must be hellbent on destroying the ozone layer. The traffic fumes in central Quito are absolutely appalling, and I'm honestly surprised I didn't catch consumption during just a few days stay. I'm particularly aiming this observation at the buses, which actually resembled recreations of the Hillsborough disaster rather than an efficient transport system. In all honesty the combination of fumes and altitude can fuck right off. Never in my life have I gotten so out of breath from walking up a mild incline. There's not just mild inclines to navigate either, as I visited the Andean highlands, so there are a lot of hills that go beyond just being mild inclines. Nobody should be building cities at that elevation on that rough terrain, it's just poor planning. That's probably not the worst crime the Spanish committed in the New World, but it's damn close.

That hill can fuck off. That traffic can fuck off. Those drivers can fuck off. It's a major miracle I wasn't scraped off the pavement after being shunted by an impatient local.

Quito was a strange capital city. It's a mishmash of different cultures that don't seem to fit together. It's not an inherently bizarre place, but it's one where you can't quite put your finger on what feels so strange. It's a city where an undesirable area can be located next to a shiny government building, a colonial monument from the past, and a branch of a Western fast food chain. I admittedly didn't get a chance to visit the outskirts of the city, but then those areas are notoriously hostile towards clueless tourists such as myself. I was repeatedly told by locals whilst getting outrageously drunk that you've got to watch your back during the evenings, and I'm sure that's true if you take a wrong turn, but the central touristy area seemed perfectly normal. There was only the one druggie screaming his head off whilst being boarded into an ambulance that left a stain on the area. Well, that and the constant playing of 'Despacito' from the convoy of party buses that passed through town every fucking evening. I have nothing against the song, but nobody needs to be blaring it out at max volume every two seconds.

As far as tourist attractions go there's not a whole variety on offer, but that doesn't mean there isn't any. There's some nice views from the top of hills, and a ton of colonial buildings to look at. The churches are also nice to look around, and there's not exactly a shortage of attractive ones either. There's also a monument to the equator nearby, although not only is this attraction extremely underwhelming, but it's also not even on the bloody equator. Thankfully the majority of hotspots in Quito are not ruined by the presence of tourists, although as with anywhere you'll always find a group of loud American tourists that will happily ruin the relaxed atmosphere for you. A personal highlight for me was the city centre market, in which every stall seemed to sell exactly the same thing, which actually worked in my favour considering I pissed off almost every vendor with my abrasive haggling technique. I probably wouldn't be the best candidate on 'The Apprentice' considering I could barely bargain for bags of cocaine or pens that depicted couples having sex. Both the markets and the historical monuments are fantastically interesting places to visit, and although I wouldn't rank Quito as one of the greatest tourist areas on the planet, it's still an exciting place to visit for any traveler.

Here's a perfect snapshot of Quito. Churches surrounded by dodgy areas.

The real draw of Ecuador is its natural beauty. I'm not aware of a single nation on Earth that can boast such a broad diversity in its natural landscapes, but then not many nations on Earth have nature written into the constitution. The diverse landscapes lead to an extraordinary abundance of life, and really Ecuador is best for nature lovers such as myself. You don't even need a trip to the famed Galapagos Islands to appreciate just how diverse the ecosystems in this country are, and just a quick trip outside any urban area will have you gasping in awe at the beautiful landscapes. Whether you want to go bear hunting in the cloud forests or be irritated by millions of animals that can easily kill you in the lowland forests, there is an endless scope of possibilities for anyone who loves wildlife. Sure, the majority of wildlife you'll see is there to make your life as miserable as possible, and a quick trip into a rainforest will have you inundated with scorpions, velvet ants, those vicious parasitic wasps, or even the hordes of moths and rhinoceros beetles that decide to attack you every evening. Nothing however is quite as feared as the chiggers. You can forget spectacled bears and pumas because these minuscule bastards will put you in the hospital in no time. You wouldn't imagine a tiny red arachnid will have you rushing into the shower after merely walking through long grass, but these assholes put the fear of god into you.

Not every species of animal in Ecuador is a dick, in fact many are as harmless as the countless different species of plant, or even the beautiful orchids that seem to grow everywhere. Hummingbirds were my personal favorites to watch, and aren't particularly difficult to locate. Even if you don't spot one you'll probably hear what sounds like a strafing run from a World War 2 bomber about two inches from your head. That would be a hummingbird, and it scared the shit out of me the first time I heard one. As with anything in Ecuador you can only revel in nature for half the day, as the other half will be spent waiting for the rain to stop pouring down. You don't even need to be outside to know when it's raining because the sound of a billion frog calls will fill the air. Even if you don't mind the pouring rain, and I mean pouring rain, you still might fall victim to the odd earthquake. This is quite a shock considering the only dangers in Britain are from strong gales and the possibility of getting diseases from some harmless animals. I didn't even go during the wet season and still got completely soaked almost every fucking day, and having some highly venomous insect on my fucking doorstep. I'm not actually sure that's a complaint, as although I moan I thought the whole rainforest experience was fucking fantastic. It is a place I recommend every person to visit in their lifetime. It may well be a complete asshole of a place to live with every living thing making your life hell on Earth, but for brief periods of time it's one of the most beautiful places you could ever visit. I loved every second of it like the sadomasochist I am, and would happily catch dengue fever for another experience.

The rainforest may be pleasant during the day, but when night descends you have these huge bastards flying at you. Oh, and for an added bonus beetles are shit at flying and have powerful jaws that can easily pierce through skin.

To summarise Ecuador is a beautiful and intriguing country that I recommend any traveler gives a visit. And no, I do not own shares in an Ecuadorian travel agent, and I'm not just saying this to gloat about my holiday. Quito, although not the nicest place in the world, was rich in culture and liveliness, and the natural landscape is unrivaled anywhere else on the planet. Would I like to live there? No, not in a million years, but I would travel there again in a heartbeat. I'd also like to show my appreciation for the people of Ecuador who were polite and cheerful towards this particular moronic tourist who could barely speak a word of Spanish. I can only apologise for the amount of times I butchered your language. I was told that Ecuadorian Spanish is easy to understand, but I must be deaf, as I couldn't understand any of it. Cheers anyway Ecuadorians, you have one beautiful country.

Final score: 8/10